Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Bell of Lost Souls is putting on a gaming convention on Aug 21-23.

You can read more about it here:
http://www.bolscon.com/

It looks like they are going to do 7 games in 2 days. 4 games day #1 and 3 games day #2. I like that idea.

Here is why I am hesitant to sign up though...they have allotted 2 hours to each round. Two hours are fine if you are playing 1500 points or less, and a lot of trouble getting in a full game with some armies at 1750. The real problem is that BoLSCon is 2000 points! How do you finish a 2000 point game in 2 hours? I imagine that there will be more guard there than ever before as well as the other armies that are slow playing, so good look getting to turn #5 not to mention turn #6 and #7.

To compound the problem they have the "Dice Down" rule that makes it even harder to finish a full game. For those that do not know, that means that there is a hard time limit, and when time is up, your game stops right then, no matter where in the turn you are. That causes a lot of arguments of whether or not you can get another turn in at the end of the game depending on if you are winning or losing. I have seen a lot of people argue over getting in one more turn, and in the amount of time that they are arguing they could have done the last turn.

So, who is looking to go to this tournament, and what are your thoughts?

I don't have the time to travel, or the money to do so, so I had no thoughts of going. I do agree with you, 2 hours for a 2,000 pt game is too short. I bet that a lot of games end in Turn 5, with some only getting Turn 4 in.

I was all set to go until I read 2000 point games in 2 hours. I have yet to complete a competitive 1750 tournament game in less then 2 hours. At 1850 I'm usually done with 10-15 minutes to spair in the round but sometimes when I play against orks or guard I'll be rushing to get turn 5 done in 2 1/2 hours at 1850.

IMO the min time for 2000 point games should be 2 1/2 hours.

I don't want to spend all the money it will cost to fly to texas & get a hotel room to just end up playing in 7 3-4 turn games in which some of my units don't even get on the board.

The more I think about it I think 40k could use some sort of turn clock, like they use in timed chess.

asugradinwa wrote:
The more I think about it I think 40k could use some sort of turn clock, like they use in timed chess.

That's fine if you're running Nidzilla or Mech Marine, but what about hordes?

I can't imagine an implementation of such a rule that wouldn't be horribly unfair, and it being GW I can't imagine that the rule would be well written to begin with.

We hardly need more lousy rules mucking (or should I say meching) up the meta.

Here is something that a lot of people have not realized yet…5th edition takes longer to play than 4th edition.

There were a lot of changes to the rules that makes the game longer to play, and a lot of tournament organizers have not realized it yet. What they need to do is either lower the point limits, or increase the time, and we are not seeing that yet.

In tournaments we pay our money to play a full game, and also have a chance at winning. To be denied either because of bad points to time ratio is the tournament organizers fault. I wish I could remember all of the games that I could have won if we were able to finish the game (I play a lot of shooting armies that do not start to move out to capture objectives until turns 4&5). I have also been to tournaments where ork players never got past turn #4.

Why on earth did they make the point limit 2000 when they are trying to get 7 games in?

It looks like it could be fun but yeah... 2000 pts in 2hrs seems pretty tight.

Doctor Optimal wrote:

asugradinwa wrote:
The more I think about it I think 40k could use some sort of turn clock, like they use in timed chess.

That's fine if you're running Nidzilla or Mech Marine, but what about hordes?

I can't imagine an implementation of such a rule that wouldn't be horribly unfair, and it being GW I can't imagine that the rule would be well written to begin with.

We hardly need more lousy rules mucking (or should I say meching) up the meta.

You have a point. I was thinking more of competitive tournaments when talking about the clock. Ever since Hardboys last year where we had to quit after the top of turn 3 with my Tau vs Necrons I end up getting a little antsy in timed events when my turns only late up 1/4 to 1/5 of the overall time and we run out.

That kind of issue actually can lead to some pretty unfair list designs made to take advantage of the time limit. I cant make the trip due to the timing but I agree that 2k at 2 hours would keep me from going even if I could.

With the new Wound Allocation Rules and TLOS "discussions" the game has definitely slowed down from 4th. I prefer the new game, but it does take longer.

I was considering it until I saw the scoring and time constraints. One of the most frustrating aspects of the team tournament at Adepticon was playing 4 turn games (I would rather have 3 6 turn games than 4 4 turn games). In addition, I heard many mumblings about players stalling/rushing the turn/time constraints.....So, 2 hours for 2k doesn't seem near enough.

Second, I wasn't impressed with the scoring system (Painting 6%?). And under that 6%, almost 75% of the total is simply having 3 colors on your models. I would think that appearance would be at least equal to sportsmanship in %, if not above it. *Shrug*, seems pretty low.

I wouldn't go after what happened to me at Broadside and not getting in 5 turns in most of my games then means I wouldn't expect it at BoLScon. I don't mind the painting score being so low as I'm at a tourney to play and don't mind as long as the other guys army is painted but the time constraints would be impossible to run my 'nids or non-mech guard. So even though I have friends I could stay with and wouldn't mind taking a quick flight but it's just not worth it to me.

djphranq wrote:It looks like it could be fun but yeah... 2000 pts in 2hrs seems pretty tight.

Darkwynn here from the Bols crew.

A lot of us finish our games way under the two hour mark. I know Jwolf and I playing 2000 point games can finish under a hour 90% of the time and that is him playing guard and me playing Black Templar hoard. I know we are not the norm but if you want to play competitive then join the 40k touranment otherwise you might want to check out the narrative which focus more on the hobby aspects.

If you guys can't finish a game in two hours at 2000 points I don't know what to say but play quicker? Also, As Blackmoor knows me too we will have no tolerance for Slow playing period if it is brought up we will give a warning by basis and if need be I will put a judge there to watch it.

There is no reason to slow play at the touranment period.

If you guys have questions you can email me at Nickrosepaintball@gmail.com

Darkwynn wrote:
Darkwynn here from the Bols crew.

A lot of us finish our games way under the two hour mark. I know Jwolf and I playing 2000 point games can finish under a hour 90% of the time and that is him playing guard and me playing Black Templar hoard. I know we are not the norm but if you want to play competitive then join the 40k touranment otherwise you might want to check out the narrative which focus more on the hobby aspects.

If you guys can't finish a game in two hours at 2000 points I don't know what to say but play quicker? Also, As Blackmoor knows me too we will have no tolerance for Slow playing period if it is brought up we will give a warning by basis and if need be I will put a judge there to watch it.

Dude no offense but play quicker? That's insulting. I am actually a very fast player and can move a tyrannid horde around a table extremely quickly but that doesn't mean my opponent can. Or that they know all the rules. Or that they have a plan in mind for how to play their army. Or that they have been playing their army for long enough that they don't need to take time to think about what they are going to do.

The problem is that your playing with people with vastly different styles that you from all over the place which is going to lead to some slowing down. Can I finish a game against most of my friends in less than 1.5 hours at 2k? Yes, because we are both at the same level. I go to a tournament and it slows down dramatically. Playing outside of a gaming club can show you that too. Telling people to play faster at 2,000pts when most tournaments are barely finishing in 2.5 hours at the same point value is ridiculous. I've been to a lot of tournaments this year and the ones that adhere to the 2.5 hour mark have not been a problem to finish. The only games I finished turnwise at the 2 hour limit (Broadside Bash) was a game against a rock solid player that plays fast and ran a templar army in vehicles and against Blackmoor (i think we finished).

That reply from you guys actually made my descision for sure not to attend. I'll be headed to the Wildwest Shootout in arizona instead.

Hulksmash wrote:

Darkwynn wrote:
Darkwynn here from the Bols crew.

A lot of us finish our games way under the two hour mark. I know Jwolf and I playing 2000 point games can finish under a hour 90% of the time and that is him playing guard and me playing Black Templar hoard. I know we are not the norm but if you want to play competitive then join the 40k touranment otherwise you might want to check out the narrative which focus more on the hobby aspects.

If you guys can't finish a game in two hours at 2000 points I don't know what to say but play quicker? Also, As Blackmoor knows me too we will have no tolerance for Slow playing period if it is brought up we will give a warning by basis and if need be I will put a judge there to watch it.

Dude no offense but play quicker? That's insulting. I am actually a very fast player and can move a tyrannid horde around a table extremely quickly but that doesn't mean my opponent can. Or that they know all the rules. Or that they have a plan in mind for how to play their army. Or that they have been playing their army for long enough that they don't need to take time to think about what they are going to do.

The problem is that your playing with people with vastly different styles that you from all over the place which is going to lead to some slowing down. Can I finish a game against most of my friends in less than 1.5 hours at 2k? Yes, because we are both at the same level. I go to a tournament and it slows down dramatically. Playing outside of a gaming club can show you that too. Telling people to play faster at 2,000pts when most tournaments are barely finishing in 2.5 hours at the same point value is ridiculous. I've been to a lot of tournaments this year and the ones that adhere to the 2.5 hour mark have not been a problem to finish. The only games I finished turnwise at the 2 hour limit (Broadside Bash) was a game against a rock solid player that plays fast and ran a templar army in vehicles and against Blackmoor (i think we finished).

That reply from you guys actually made my descision for sure not to attend. I'll be headed to the Wildwest Shootout in arizona instead.

I am not trying to be insulting by any means Hulksmash but two hours has been the standard for a lot of tournaments for years now. Even Adepitcon games are two hours and you have Gladtior games at 2500 points at that level.


I don't know what to say but if you have questions about people slowing the game down or what not we will have judges around to help move games along. This is a touranment and people going to these events should know the rules or have a good foundation about them. I would hope most of those people who don't understand the rules clearly or would like to a be involved more of the hobby aspect check out the Narrative.

It hasn't been the standard at any GT, or Indy GT event i've attended in the last 4 years. Adepticon may well have a 2 hour time limit but the rest of the country isn't Adepticon (no offense to Adepticon, they have done great things for the hobby and the tournament scene in general).

Oh and the Gladiator event works because you can bring FW at that level. Meaning the general destructiveness goes way up fast and those extra 500 points are quite possibly only one extra model.

Also the 2k point limit is a relatively recent thing with games being 1850 or even the drop to 1750 last year. Granted I haven't checked out a few of the east coast Indy's in the last year so maybe most of them have switched to a 2 hour time limit w/2k armies but I haven't seen one midwest or westcoast Indy GT w/less than a 2.5 hour time limit.

Like was stated earlier in the thread if it was 1750 or even 1850 (though this is stretching it) at 2 hours it would be fine. But at 2k it's just not enough time.

The big problem I have is there is no cushion if your opponent doesn't play as fast as you do. They might not be slowing the game down intentionally but they just don't play as fast. And i'm not comfortable paying for a tourney and a plane ticket to not get full games in and this will happen. And i'm not the only one as the one major criticism has been the time allotted per game on this thread.

Most tournaments follow the GW standard which these days is 1750.

The Adepticon Gladiator, was 2 1/2 hours for a 2250 game. I looked at my batreps for the Gladiator and I finished all of my games. Of course I played a small elitie army like I do most of the time, and I played a lot of other small armies. Forgeworld does help make the game go a lot faster when you have a lot of points tied up in one model.

The Broadside bash was 2 hours and 2000 points and I finished 3 out of 5 games. 2 games did not go 6 turns is 2 too many.

If you are playing against IG or Orks, the time will be an issue. IG takes a long time to deploy, and the now that they have orders, it takes a lot longer now to play them.

You can finish a 2000 point game in 2 hours if you're used to playing at that pace and train yourself to play quickly. My experience is that most tourney players do not play at that pace.

Personally, being the victim of "stalling" players at tournies I see where Darkwyn is coming from. This stalling was so bad it made me quit playing horde Nids. I think in addition to the "stalling on purpose", I think people don't adjust their play style from a casual game setting to tourney settings. I.E. its a toruney you need to step up your game to try get a complete game in.

I don't have a problem with the format, I wish I could go actually.

I think more tournies should take up the same policy as the BOLS guys.


GG


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dietrich wrote:You can finish a 2000 point game in 2 hours if you're used to playing at that pace and train yourself to play quickly. My experience is that most tourney players do not play at that pace.

QFT

GG

I understand the concern of players and dealing with time constraints; time is always one of the significant factors in a tournament. We are constructing scenarios with the time limits in mind, we are standardizing the list outputs to minimize the need for rules discussions beforehand, terrain will be set before the start of the game, and we will work aggressively to encourage games being played to completion.

I also agree that no matter how quick of a player you are, your opponent plays into the equation - I had a 3 hour turn with a newer player earlier this year due to the enormous volume of rules instruction required. It is possible that you will draw a player like this and be totally unable to finish your game, through no fault of your own. If it looks like that's what you have at the table, get a judge immediately. Our judges cell phone numbers will be on your tournament packet, so you can send a text message to them without leaving your table, or you can simply raise both arms and a judge will head towards your table immediately (all of this will be on your tournament packet), and the chief judges can adjust the scoring for the round up to and including giving full points for the round to a player. While we will not prevent new players from playing in our tournaments, we will work to make certain that simply drawing a new player in an early round will not keep an otherwise competitive player from advancing. That said, with a Swiss system you are unlikely to face an incompetent player in the second round, almost certain not to face one in the third round, and it is close to impossible that you will face one from the fourth round onwards.

As to overall scoring issues: We intend to focus the tabletop scoring on fighting battles and being an agreeable opponent. As such, we have removed the painting competition to it's own separate set of awards and prizes. Our scoring system allows us to enforce a reasonable quality level on the tabletop painting without giving extraordinary painters an effective massacre over merely competent ones in the tournament scoring. For those with extraordinary painting skill, our system lets you compete with your showpiece army in the painting system even if you might want to play with a different army in the tournament.

Best Regards,

Jon Wolf
Bell of Lost Souls Tournament Organizer

sounds good to me. 2 Hours is enough, and we'll call judges if the opponent is slow-playing.

jwolf wrote: Our judges cell phone numbers will be on your tournament packet, so you can send a text message to them without leaving your table, or you can simply raise both arms and a judge will head towards your table immediately (all of this will be on your tournament packet), and the chief judges can adjust the scoring for the round up to and including giving full points for the round to a player.

This has decided me. I will also not be attending. I detest the idea of judges being able just give out points to players based on what is, at best, an arbitrary set of conditions. I agree with most of the posters here: lower the amount of games, and increase the time limit to 2.5 hours. Having people able to 'win' SIMPLY because their opponent is a new (or newer, or newish) player and seems to be taking a long is inherently flawed, not to mention degrading and prejudiced to the new guy. I forsee abuse by players who would rather argue and call in a judge than try to actually beat that 'Nid swarm fairly, and a LOT of bad feelings towards the TO's regardless of who they rule against.

Victories should be determined by a SET IN STONE standard, I.E. the rules for the scenario. They should ONLY be decided by judges in the case of proven cheating, or a clear violation of the rules set forth for the tournament as a whole. Just handing out points to player A because player B can't maneuver his forces as easily as player A thinks he should... NOT a good idea. Not to mention the whine and argument fiesta that's possible just insinuating that the judges could be convinced to hand out a victory if you complain enough.....

Lordhat wrote:

jwolf wrote: Our judges cell phone numbers will be on your tournament packet, so you can send a text message to them without leaving your table, or you can simply raise both arms and a judge will head towards your table immediately (all of this will be on your tournament packet), and the chief judges can adjust the scoring for the round up to and including giving full points for the round to a player.

This has decided me. I will also not be attending. I detest the idea of judges being able just give out points to players based on what is, at best, an arbitrary set of conditions. I agree with most of the posters here: lower the amount of games, and increase the time limit to 2.5 hours. Having people able to 'win' SIMPLY because their opponent is a new (or newer, or newish) player and seems to be taking a long is inherently flawed, not to mention degrading and prejudiced to the new guy. I forsee abuse by players who would rather argue and call in a judge than try to actually beat that 'Nid swarm fairly, and a LOT of bad feelings towards the TO's regardless of who they rule against.

Victories should be determined by a SET IN STONE standard, I.E. the rules for the scenario. They should ONLY be decided by judges in the case of proven cheating, or a clear violation of the rules set forth for the tournament as a whole. Just handing out points to player A because player B can't maneuver his forces as easily as player A thinks he should... NOT a good idea. Not to mention the whine and argument fiesta that's possible just insinuating that the judges could be convinced to hand out a victory if you complain enough.....

Perhaps I was unclear. Points adjustment isn't some sort of willy-nilly handout system that rewards whining and threats, and any case of score adjustment goes through me. Whining won't weigh into the decision a positive fashion. What I want to avoid is have a new guy get stressed out by an old veteran who is trying desperately to get the turns played so that he can stay in the running. I think giving the veteran a pass on the round keeps the veteran from being crippled by an unlucky draw in an early round, the luck being unrelated to his tabletop play, and hopefully keeps the new player from giving up on the hobby due to a bad tournament experience.

Playing in a timely fashion is set out as a rule of the tournament, and playing exceedingly slowly is a violation of that rule. Neither Player A nor Player B will be have significant input in that decision based on anything other than playing the game. Player A's opinion of Player B's maneuvering is sufficient to get a judge to watch the game, but insufficient to generate any change to the scoring.

I realize that in a perfect world we would have sufficient time for any combination of two players to complete play in any scenario. The fact is that is not a realistic option. Two hours is sufficent time for skilled players of any two armies to complete 7 turns of 40K at 2000 points in 5th edition and calculate all the objective points, if both players have practiced playing with a two hour limit in mind and the scenarios are designed with the timelimits in mind.
For reference, I have played somewhere over 300 games of 40K at 2000 points in 5th edition (and most of those with infantry-heavy armies). The vast majority of those were completed in less than 90 minutes. I don't think it is unreasonable to assume that most players who choose to attend a tournament will practice for the tournament and will be able to complete games.

I also find it possible that at least one person will try to use the judges against their opponent in order to gain an advantage - there always seems to be one in any tournament, no matter if it's 40K, tennis, or tiddlywinks. I hope that this person shows up in the beginning of round one; I've found that summary ejection is most effective if it occurs earlier rather than later.

I hope this clarifies this issue for you, and would be glad to host you in August.

Jon Wolf
Bell of Lost Souls Tournament Organizer

I have to tell you the reason a lot of people attend tournaments other than the sense of competition is because it is one of the few times they can get in multiple games. So that being said I do think it is a little unreasonable to expect people to play within a time limit that hasn't been a standard.

As for 300 games and most in 90 minutes how many of those games were against complete strangers in tournament environments. I could be wrong and maybe you really are an exception but I'm a fast player and while there have been a few times at 2k I've finished in 90 minutes at tournies it is by far not the norm. Heck you can ask Blackmoor, I ran a 'Nid horde at 115 models and we still finished in the two hours but that wasn't the norm for the weekend unfortunately.

I heard there will be a BoLS FAQ for 40k. If that's true it makes me cringe. I understand why Adepticon has a FAQ and it's been well done plus it's appropriate when you have that many players under one roof. That said I really don't want to see anymore independent FAQs. It feels like a burden and the last thing I want to see is a separate FAQ for every large event. I'm happy with the rules straight up.

I think you guys should really consider lowering the points if you are going to keep the games 2 hours long. It's just not possible to expect everyone to finish their games in 2 hours or less. I have had many local tournament games at 1850 points and 2.5 hours not get past the 4th turn and this includes mostly games versus power armor. The 5th edition game does take longer to play as pointed out by Blackmoor.

My mom is coming to visit me that weekend so there is no way I could make it regardless of the above issues.

G

The BoLSCon 40K FAQ

http://www.box.net/shared/576lhzj7as

I have not had a chance to look it over.

jwolf wrote:
I realize that in a perfect world we would have sufficient time for any combination of two players to complete play in any scenario. The fact is that is not a realistic option. Two hours is sufficent time for skilled players of any two armies to complete 7 turns of 40K at 2000 points in 5th edition and calculate all the objective points, if both players have practiced playing with a two hour limit in mind and the scenarios are designed with the timelimits in mind.
For reference, I have played somewhere over 300 games of 40K at 2000 points in 5th edition (and most of those with infantry-heavy armies). The vast majority of those were completed in less than 90 minutes. I don't think it is unreasonable to assume that most players who choose to attend a tournament will practice for the tournament and will be able to complete games.

JWolf,

I feel compelled to respond to this statement because I think it is representative of the thoughts of so many tournament organizers now-a-days and I think it is a really damaging attitude towards promoting tournament play to a wide variety of players and army types.

You are correct that more and more tournaments continue to push the points level of tournament game without increasing the length of time allotted to complete the game. But just because other tournaments have done this in no way makes it a positive situation.

IMHO, it is only reasonable to assume that people 'practice their speed of play for tournament games' if you are only looking to attract those players who are willing and/or able to practice to this level with the army they are going to bring to the tournament. For many gamers, tournaments are the only games they get to play during the year. For other players, they just do not get enough practice in with a new army before coming to the tournament, or they may be playing with an army that simply plays slower than other armies (hordes, for example).

By increasing the points value of the tournament game but not increasing the time limit, you are only promoting your tournament players who are able to get that practice time in to perfect their army's playing style. Conversely, you drive away players who might bring different types of armies (like hordes) but don't have the time to 'master' playing them super-quickly. Those 'un practiced' gamers that do end up attending your tournament are going to struggle to finish their games which is ultimately going to be a frustrating experience for both themselves and their tournament opponents. They won't be stalling, its just that they won't be able to finish their games in the allotted time.


I always wonder why people think that playing tournament games should be a frenzied experience that people have to 'practice' in order to accomplish? What good does this do for tournaments? Ultimately players should be able to have a FUN time without feeling the constant disappointment of not being able to finish their games if they haven't developed the 'skill' of gaming super-quickly or are playing with an army that takes longer to play with.

Is it such a horrible thing to have enough time for all players to finish their games? I know this would mean that those players who do play quickly (or have smaller armies) end up with a big chunk of time in between games, but is this really such a terrible thing? I know I've finished games quickly and I always enjoy walking around the tournament watching games that are still being played or going to get a little something more to eat/drink, etc.

By having too much time in between games your tournament can be a pleasurable, leisurely experience for everyone. Conversely, by setting the time limit so strict that the only people who can finish their games in the allotted time are those who have practiced ahead of time to do so creates a frustrating experience for any who are unable to finish their game and even those who do finish their games may not enjoy them as much because of the frenzied pace (i.e. if you're so focused on just rolling the dice and removing your men you may kind of miss the whole FUN part of the game).


Now I know that there is no way you can extend the amount of time in the day and to fit seven games in two days. So what I'm suggesting to you is:

Consider lowering the points cost of your tournament.


I know some players keep wanting more and more points in their tournament games and TOs, like yourself, keep obliging. But I think what everyone is forgetting is that this mentality makes it harder and harder for new players to start playing in tournaments. Please consider that not everyone plays like you and your gaming group and not everyone has the time or ability to get to that speedy level of play needed to complete such a large game in such a short amount of time.

Why not be part of a new solution to this problem and set your tournament at 1,500 points? It is the level that the designers say the game is best tweaked for for pick-up and tournament pay and it is the points level that they play at the GTs over in the UK, so why not over here considering you're trying to stuff 7 games into two days?


Whatever you choose, I wish you the best of luck, but I would love if you would take what I'm saying into consideration and start trail-blazing the path back towards tournament points-level sanity in the US.

If I was within 5000miles of where it is held I might

I agree with Yakface.

If I go (and I am on the fence right now) I will select an army that is very small for 2000 points. It might not be the army that I want to play, but because of the time at least I can maximize the chance that I will finish the game.


I hope JWolf you have thought about this...

Not only would 1500 points help out people finish games, but it has the side effect of having some people finish early so you can get started imputing the data for the round. You are only giving yourselves 30 minutes to:

Collect all of the result sheets

Entering in all of the results

Posting the match-ups for the next round

Have everyone get their results

Move their armies to their tables

Read the scenarios for the next game

Meet your opponents

Read your opponents list

Sorting out the objectives

Talk about how you are going to work terrain

Start the game.

There is just so much crap that goes into starting a game of 40k that you don't even think about it.

I think you are being way to optimistic with that time table. If you stick with 2000 points and 2 hours you will be getting a flood of result sheets 15 minutes after the round ended and then you will have the next matches start on time?

I think there is not doubt that they can stick to that schedule with the 'dice down' policy.

But what I'm trying to point out is: What kind of experience is that going to be for everyone involved?

At best I think only a small percentage of players will be able to finish their game in any kind of pleasant fashion.

Some may finish by madly rushing through their games and many (if not most) will not finish all of their games.


If that proves to be true, is sticking with 2,000 points worth it?

I obviously vote no.

I agree with Yak and Blackmoor. The tourney scene really need to get game size and length under control. That was probably the most refreshing thing about last year's GW GTs...reasonable points size (1750) + game length (2.5) + limited number of games (3, then 2) = equaled more fun for this gamer.

I just enjoy it more when I have time to interact with my opponent instead of just grunting as we furiously roll dice. When I'm "in shape" with my Tyranid horde, I can play them fast...but it's more enjoyable to be able to take a breath and know you'll still get your turns in.

As Yak said, the "dice down" policy will work, but I feel that impacts enjoyment too thanks to the "one more turn or not" angling you tend to see.

I'm not trying to slag the BoLS guys here...I hope this is received as constructive advice and not throwing stones. I think it's great they're doing the tourney and hope it's a great success.

I really wanted to go to this. But, as it turns out, I already have tickets to both a Bears pre-season game, and a concert that weekend, so it's just inconvenient timing and I'll have to hope for next year.